Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at archive.org. At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Giem states that he has been informed that the book is now (it's not clear when he gave the talk but it must have been after World Scientific finally published it) from Springer in e-book format. However, while BI:NP still has its own Springer page the eBook link on that page is dead.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

I should have mentioned that Giem added links to the relevant PT and AtBc threads to his video and to the video page at youtube.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at archive.org. At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:

Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at archive.org. At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:

Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at archive.org. At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:

Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at archive.org. At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:

Who was the old geezer sitting next to Gauger in the second row? He sure did a lot of whining.

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

They helpfully made "Cornell" one of the keywords on the post. Just in case anyone forgot it's the CORNELL UNIVERSITY Symposium on Biological Information, <tinyfont> not affiliated with Cornell University </tinyfont>.

They helpfully made "Cornell" one of the keywords on the post. Just in case anyone forgot it's the CORNELL UNIVERSITY Symposium on Biological Information, <tinyfont> not affiliated with Cornell University </tinyfont>.

They inexplicably forgot to include "School of Hotel Management."

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at archive.org. At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:

Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at archive.org. At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:

Long time professional YEC. But ID has nothing to do with Biblical Creation, honest!

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

Dr. Giem claims that Casey Luskin's article on the origin of the School of Hotel Management conference refutes the concerns of critics. Giem focuses on whether the IDC advocates contacted Springer, or Springer contacted the IDC advocates. Giem ignores the concern that the inappropriate use of Cornell's name was a factor in Springer's involvement.

Giem quotes Casey on saying that someone at Springer solicited a book proposal from Bill Dembski. This apparently is supposed to make everything A-OK in how things went down. Here's an email that Luskin quotes concerning what went to Springer to introduce that proposal:

Quote

Dear [Snip],

It's been over a year since we've been in touch. I hope this finds you well.

Back in September of last year you invited me to propose a volume to your ISRL series (see below). This spring (31 May to 3 June 2011) some of my colleagues are holding a symposium at Cornell University on new directions in biological information: "Biological Information -- New Perspectives." John Sanford, a biologist at Cornell, is hosting the event.

[...]

Giem skips over that part entirely. (Luskin dismisses it parenthetically at the start.) He moves forward to Luskin's timeline showing Springer signing off on the proposal and ready for things to move forward. But the bit documented by Luskin shows that in the initial offering of a proceedings volume to Springer, rather than a Dembski monograph as solicited, Dembski used the Cornell imprimatur to pitch it, which is one of the problems that concerned critics. This is not paranoia. It is not "persecution" to want to make sure that what religious antievolutionists say is preserved for posterity. If they don't want the things they say now to bite them in the butt later, rather than try to wipe the record clean, they might consider that they might stop lying so much.

Maybe Springer would have been on board with Dembski saying that a batch of his buddies were having a science-and-BBQ meetup at his restaurant in Riesel, TX, or any other not-usually-associated-with-scholarship locale. We don't know how that might have been received. What we do know to a certainty now is that the Cornell name was used in making the pitch to have Springer take on the conference proceedings, despite the fact that Cornell can't be stated to have sponsored the content of the event, no more than they sponsor any of the weddings that take place in the same rented space.

They helpfully made "Cornell" one of the keywords on the post. Just in case anyone forgot it's the CORNELL UNIVERSITY Symposium on Biological Information, <tinyfont> not affiliated with Cornell University </tinyfont>.

"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." -- Tom Waits

--------------"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night." Joe G

Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at archive.org. At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:

Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at archive.org. At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:

They helpfully made "Cornell" one of the keywords on the post. Just in case anyone forgot it's the CORNELL UNIVERSITY Symposium on Biological Information, <tinyfont> not affiliated with Cornell University </tinyfont>.

"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." -- Tom Waits

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Paul Giem adresses Dan Graur's "On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE" (Youtube link). Especially, the discussion at the end is quite telling - and depressing.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

The only good thing about Ken Ham's AIG is they don't want to fool anybody about ID:

Quote

There has also been more published by creationists in the field of population genetics, including papers presented at the Biological Information: New Perspectives Symposium held at Cornell University in 2011 (Marks et al. 2013).

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Later in 2011, I was privileged to attend an ID-research conference at Cornell University where dozens of ID-friendly scientists presented their work. The aftermath of this conference provided valuable insights that exposed the Darwin lobby's true aims, as well as their limitations. Many of the papers at this conference were supposed to appear in the book Biological Information: New Perspectives, to have been published by Springer-Verlag, a prestigious science publishing house. But ID-critics apparently felt threatened by the volume, so they mounted a campaign to pressure Springer to not publish the book. This was extremely revealing. How many times have we heard ID critics say things like "ID can't be taken seriously because it doesn't present research at science conferences and doesn't publish scientific papers." But then what happens when ID proponents do exactly what the critics demanded? What happens when we present pure research papers at a science conference at a top university and then seek to have it published by a world-class scientific publisher? Do Darwin lobbyists applaud us? No. Instead, they try to censor our work. This showed that the true goal of many Darwin lobbyists is to stifle academic freedom for ID at all costs, not to invite real scientific dialogue, and not to seek the truth.

Unfortunately, Springer capitulated to the censors and refused to publish the book, illegally violating their contract. But in the end, the Biological Information: New Perspectives volume was published by another well-respected publisher, World Scientific. The message here is that Darwin lobbyists don't have enough confidence and security in the merits of their viewpoint to allow critics to publish credible alternative viewpoints. It also shows that there are forces in the mainstream scientific community who are willing to seek the truth even in the face of political threats from the Darwin lobby. The whole episode was a major win for ID.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Later in 2011, I was privileged to attend an ID-research conference at Cornell University where dozens of ID-friendly scientists presented their work. The aftermath of this conference provided valuable insights that exposed the Darwin lobby's true aims, as well as their limitations. Many of the papers at this conference were supposed to appear in the book Biological Information: New Perspectives, to have been published by Springer-Verlag, a prestigious science publishing house. But ID-critics apparently felt threatened by the volume, so they mounted a campaign to pressure Springer to not publish the book. This was extremely revealing. How many times have we heard ID critics say things like "ID can't be taken seriously because it doesn't present research at science conferences and doesn't publish scientific papers." But then what happens when ID proponents do exactly what the critics demanded? What happens when we present pure research papers at a science conference at a top university and then seek to have it published by a world-class scientific publisher? Do Darwin lobbyists applaud us? No. Instead, they try to censor our work. This showed that the true goal of many Darwin lobbyists is to stifle academic freedom for ID at all costs, not to invite real scientific dialogue, and not to seek the truth.

Unfortunately, Springer capitulated to the censors and refused to publish the book, illegally violating their contract. But in the end, the Biological Information: New Perspectives volume was published by another well-respected publisher, World Scientific. The message here is that Darwin lobbyists don't have enough confidence and security in the merits of their viewpoint to allow critics to publish credible alternative viewpoints. It also shows that there are forces in the mainstream scientific community who are willing to seek the truth even in the face of political threats from the Darwin lobby. The whole episode was a major win for ID.

Will the IDiots abuse Cambridge like they did with Cornell?Although they are absolutely unaware of the target and the direction of the original they refer to this is exactly what they are intending according to their announcement:

It's the same people as always (Meyer, Gauger, Axe et al.) plus some Europeans.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."